Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

on the County offering him a choice of remaining at South Plant or returning to

West Point. No reasonable juror could interpret those offers to accommodate

Marin as harassment, so HR's knowledge of Marin's protected activity cannot be

the basis of a retaliation claim.

Thus, contrary to Marin's assertion that he provided "evidence of

widespread notice of protected WLAD activity," Marin's evidence was not

sufficient for any rational juror to find retaliatory animus. Nowhere does he point

to an individual who both knew of his protected activity and, afterward, took some

action that could reasonably be construed as harassment. The trial court

therefore correctly directed a verdict for the County on Marin's claim of hostile

work environment based on retaliation.

-25-
             

No. 72666-8-1 / 26

Remaining Assignments of Error

Marin asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motions alleging

discovery violations by the County. He fails to support these assignments of

error with argument and citations to authority and has thus waived them.60 And

so far as his arguments are discernible, they lack merit. Marin cites to no

evidence that exhibits 618 and 619—summary exhibits of large spreadsheets

containing Marin's time entries—should have been produced in response to

discovery but were not, and he does not explain how late discovery of those

exhibits prejudiced him.61 Marin's arguments that the County failed to disclose

exhibits 458, 629, and 630—e-mails and logs regarding the April 2009 "priority

directive" at West Point—similarly lack support.62